September 23, 2019--Jack's Coffee On Rona

"I got to admit I never read the Constitution cover to cover."

"Well, you should," I said to Jack. "If you want to pretend to be a true conservative you should have it memorized. Conservatives are always boasting how they follow it religiously and wave it around like it was Mao's Red Book, but of course ignore it when it's convenient for them to do so. Like how now they  are ignoring the Congress's Constitutional power to provide oversight of the president and his administration. To hold him and them accountable for their actions."

"You're reading my mind," Jack said, sounding sober, "It's the so-called oversight function I want to talk about."

"This I have to hear," Rona muttered. We were at the Bristol Diner again having breakfast when Jack showed up. 

"The Constitution may call for this, but the way I look at things your people, though they are squealing like stuck pigs claiming Trump is not cooperating, actually prefer it this way so they can score some cheap political points by beating up on him for not going along with their call for copies of memos and emails and telephone records and the testimony of witnesses like former White House counsel, whatever his name is."

"McGahn."

"That's him."

"And your point other than to criticize the Democrats in the House who want to provide that legitimate oversight is . . .?"

"That they are coming off looking like wimps and crybabies."

"So, what would you have them do after admitting you haven't read the Constitution and don't know why our Founders built Congressional oversight and checks and balances into our system?"

"To make sure our presidents don't become tyrants."

"Very good, Jack," I said, "I'm impressed. That's basically right. We had just fought a war of independence against England which was ruled by what our colonial leaders saw to be a corrupt monarch. George III. They didn't want to see the United States go down a similar path. It was more complicated than that but you got the essence of it. So what's your problem?"

"It's really your problem. I'm trying to help you guys out."

"That'll be the day," Rona said, not looking up.

Without missing a beat, Jack said, "No really. Though we disagree about pretty much everything, I enjoy arguing back and forth with both of you guys. It keeps me sharp."

"That should only be," Rona said.

"If you want to have a useful conversation about this," I said, "you need to get your facts right. Then we can exchange views. But without agreeing about some facts we can't do that."

"Let's try that," Jack said, "I'm in that kind of mood this morning. Not for us to rag on each other but to see if we can find some common ground. Because to tell you the truth I don't like what Trump seems to have done with the president of the Ukraine. To blackmail him to get dirt on Biden and his son. Look, I want to see Biden lose but not by having foreign governments involved in our elections. That's my view and should be for all conservatives who believe in democracy."

"I can't believe my ears," Rona said, looking up.

"So," Jack said to the two of us, "I know why you're upset about the Ukraine, but isn't the oversight business among Democrats in the House mainly political posturing?"

"I'm glad we can at least agree about Ukraine," I said, "The oversight function, as I said, is more complicated but at least equally outrageous and dangerous."

"Why dangerous?"

"Because Trump by refusing to cooperate with Congress when they try to apply checks and balances is in fact attacking the Constitution itself. Our government itself. If you look at the actual Constitution, Congress, really the House of Representatives, is given the preeminent role in our three-part governmental system, which as you know, in addition to Congress, is the executive branch (the president and his administration) and the federal courts. But by refusing to cooperate with Congress's legitimate oversight function Trump is wanting to make the executive branch preeminent. To in effect do away with Congress to gather more power to himself. To be fair, and I know I'm rattling on, previous presidents have done various things to weaken the hands of Congress and even the courts. Roosevelt, for example, wanted to pack the Supreme Court to get it to rule in favor of his New Deal programs. Happily for the sake of checks and balances, that didn't work out. Quite a few Democrats, members of his own party, opposed Roosevelt. Which should be a lesson for today's Republicans as Trump's threat to our system is so total and serious."

"I need to think about this," Jack said. "I must admit that some of what you're saying rings true and is disturbing. But don't get your hopes up," he added quickly, "I'm still a Trumpian, but I need to think about this because I don't want to see our democracy undermined. I have to admit that there are signs that this is happening. I don't want us to get involved in another civil war. That we don't need.

Rona said, "I may be hallucinating but I'm paying for your coffee this morning."

July 2, 2018--Jack: Born On the 4th of July

"Happy birthday!"

"My birthday is in October," I said to Jack who was on the phone, sounding celebratory, "I'm confused."

"I was born on the 4th of July, wouldn't you know it, and I call all my liberal friends to remind them about how it was when America was great. When we had our freedom."

Here we go, I thought, but said, "July 4th isn't until Wednesday and I assume you have at most one or two calls to make, considering I'm probably one of your only liberal friends."

"You'd be surprised," he said.

"I'm sure I would be. But in the meantime, happy July 2nd."

"I assume you've read the Declaration of Independence."

"I sort of know it by heart--'When in the course of human events . . .' We were required to memorize the first few paragraphs in elementary school."

"You mean when America was great," he repeated himself, chuckling, "Before all the political correctness. These days, since the Declaration didn't free the slaves or talk about women's rights it's probably ignored in history class, that is if kids these days even take history."

"About that we probably agree. Not much history is being learned these days. Or evolution." 

He liked that. "You know we conservatives like the Declaration more than the Constitution. The Constitution is about what kind of government we are to have while the Declaration is about what to do when the government becomes oppressive. How to change it. Even how to overthrow it. That was a big deal to Jefferson. Didn't he call for governments to be overthrown every few years? Every generation? I think he called this, 'throwing the government off.'"

"Glad to see you know at least some history. And about the differences between the two documents. We may agree about that too. Though we have differences, other big differences. I don't see the government in general being oppressive. Aspects of it, yes. Especially now with Trump as president, ironically, though he calls for less government in fact many of the things he's been doing are making the government even bigger and more oppressive. Think what it would be like if you were an American Muslim. Or an immigrant Dreamer. You wouldn't feel too free now."

"Speaking of immigrates, have you been to any big political demonstrations lately?"

"What about this past Saturday? Doesn't that count?"

"Not impressive. Relatively few marchers showed up. Sure wasn't like the Pussy thing or the one organized by Parkland High School survivors. Millions across the country participated then. This one was hardly publicized or covered by the press."

"Again, it looks like we agree."

"Just more evidence that you guys are out of gas. If you were serious about protecting your rights--like for women and gays, immigrants and the Supreme Court--shouldn't you be planning a huge 4th of July protest? A massive march on Washington? Reading of the Declaration? To show that you're unified and riled up. Not just heading out to the Hamptons or the Macy's fireworks thing. That you're willing to forgo your BBQs. Of course I'm not unhappy about this, but you and your friends should do some hard thinking about how to rally your people. To have a chance in November you have to out-organzie us. We're all jazzed up again with the prospect of Trump appointing another Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. If that doesn't get you marching I don't know what will. The Supreme Court is one vote away from overturning. Roe v. Wade. I hate that idea, by the way, because I'm a libertarian and support a woman's right to choose."

"It must be your birthday," I said, "Because again I tend to agree with you. We progressives have to get even more serious and mobilized."

"I've got to run," Jack said, "I have more calls to make. In the meantime, fair warning."

June 29, 2015--Jiggery-Pokery

In his, even for him intemperate rant against the Supreme Court's historic 6-3 decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), associate justice Anton Scalia went further than usual in a descent that went beyond the judicial to the very personal.

More than saying that he fervently disagrees with his colleagues' legal logic, he accused them of participating in a deceitful and dishonest act, even applying the archaic Scottish slur jiggery-pokery to impeach their honor and integrity.

In the old days, which he so reveres, he might have been called out to a duel on the field of honor by one of the other justices. But alas, we will have to endure more of him and more of this because the court, under chief justice Roberts, is going rogue on him.

As the intellectual leader of the court's conservatives, the alleged strict constructionists or texturalists,  for decades dominating the other three to four justices who have placidly gone along with his views of the Constitution (with Kennedy occasionally being a swing vote, agreeing with the four automatic liberals), Scalia now finds himself at times in the minority, especially when the court hands down its most significant decisions, like last week's rulings on Obamacare, same-sex marriage, and the Fair Housing Act. (Do not overlook the importance of the latter.)

Scalia might have been more enraged than ever by Roberts' majority opinion in Burwell (the ACA appeal) where he subtly and without attribution quoted Scalia to himself to support the core of the argument he articulated for the five concurring justices.

It is all about context, as Scalia claimed in cases last year when he employed the same contextual argument--it is all about what the Congress truly intended. In the ACA case, Roberts wrote last week, if one looks at the 900-plus page context of the ACA--as Scalia would have us do in selective instances such as this one for laws he viscerally despises--it is clear that Congress intended the uncovered to be able to obtain affordable health care insurance.

Being quoted this way to justify something he violently opposes clearly got under Scalia's skin and motivated him to deliver his dissent from the bench, a highly unusual occurrence that underscored his fury.

But, again, Scalia's intemperance is less about the Obamacare vote than his sense that the court and American society on key social issues are moving on and he is more and more being left in the retrograde past--multiple meanings intended.

He will learn forcefully now that this is the Roberts' Court, not the Scalia.

December 26, 2014--Best of Behind: TMI

Something literally light spirited from December 20, 2006--

I'm not all that big a fan of Census data.

I do not need to know about what and how much "average" Americans eat and drink in a year (no surprise—too much); how many square feet their apartments have (twice as many as mine); or, for that matter, how much they weigh (also too much). 

I always thought that the Census was carried out every ten years, as required by the Constitution, to see how many of us there are so that congressional districts could be apportioned among the states based on the size of their populations. To accomplish this, Census Bureau folks used to send out forms to every household and, to follow that up, they would hire canvasers who would visit every household to see if you were hiding anyone up in the attic.

So how did they get from that into counting how many gallons of bottled water we drink each year (23) or how tall we are (24 percent of Americans over 70 years of age are shorter than 5-foot-6)?

It's enough to make a small-government, strict constructionist out of me--someone who, like Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, wants the Constitution to be taken literally: just count the noses but stay out of my medicine cabinet, or bedroom. For example, do we have to know that 11.2 percent of women admit to having had same-sex "contacts” but only 6 percent of men were willing to fess up?

I’m most fascinated by the statistic that reveals how much more bottled water we have been drinking in recent years. Ten times more than in 1980. Has the quality of municipal water declined so precipitously? Or is it that we are going to the gym more and are taking bottled water along with us to keep us hydrated or looking cool? Or is it because of all the Wall Street bonuses, splurging on a $7.00 a bottle of Evian or Pellegrino makes a better impression than drinking plain-old New York City Tap?

Which brings me to another point—I’m getting a little worried, from a national security perspective, about our growing dependence on foreign bottled water. With the price of these, gallon-to-gallon, actually higher than the cost of imported gasoline, aren’t we putting ourselves in danger of being held hostage by our enemies, including and especially the French?

What would happen, for example, if France and Italy and Poland (Poland Springs, no?) were to form OWPEC—the Organization of Water Exporting Countries—and imposed a bottled-water embargo?

Now I’m beginning to understand why President Bush just announced that he’s going to increase the size of the army—not for deployment in Iraq but to mobilize when we have to preemptively invade Perrier.

November 17, 2014--Co-Equal?

Flipping channels the other morning in search of anything other than the local weather forecast and reports about gridlocked traffic, I paused for a moment on MSNBC to see how their post-election post-mortem was proceeding.

They had already concluded that there was no chance of anything bipartisan happening between a cranky Republican Congress and an equally grumpy Barack Obama, who was about to issue a series of executive orders to deal in part with our immigration mess.

John Boehner was sputtering that if the president did this the GOP would fight him "tooth and nail," some of his members gleefully chiming in in the background that this could lead to Obama's impeachment; while over in the Senate, about-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that if Obama signed those executive orders it would "be like waving a red flag in front of a bull" and could easily lead, McConnell threatened, to yet another government shutdown.

Boehner I ignored--he has his Tea Party members to contend with; but I took McConnell at his word because if there is anything he knows about it's bull.

One of the MSNBC panelists pointed out that Obama acting as promised would assure nothing gets done since, "in our system," the federal government is made up of "three co-equal parts" and unless there is some semblance of working together it will mean that more than the traffic will be gridlocked.

Really, I thought. Have the MSNBC folks read their Constitution recently?

In fact, in great detail, whatever we think of it, the Constitution goes to great length to make certain that the three branches of our government will be anything but equal or, if you prefer, co-equal. And to assure that the Congress, which at least theoretically most represents "the people," in fear of European-like monarchal tyranny or dominance by corrupt and unrepresentative courts, our Founders took care to structure things so that Congress would be preeminent.

Not the executive branch and not even the Supreme Court. In fact, creating the Supreme Court was an afterthought on the part of the Framers. That's how much they despised and feared the potential power of a corrupt judiciary. And so they severely limited its powers. As they did the presidency, again, for fear of tyranny.

Congress has the exclusive power to enact laws (forget executive orders which by their nature are constitutionally questionable--something we may see tested if Obama does his immigration thing) and once passed and approved the executive, like it or not, the president must enforce. Indeed, though bills passed by Congress must be approved by the president, if they are vetoed, the Congress still has the ultimate authority to enact them by voting to overturn that veto. And if the president refuses to follow the Constitution he can be impeached and removed from office. By Congress. As can Supreme Court and other federal judges. Again, solely by Congress. Only voters can get rid of even felonious or demagogic congressmen.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

What about the president's constitutional prerogatives as Commander in Chief? Doesn't that make him preeminent? Not really.

When the Constitution was written in 1787 the new republic didn't have a standing army and so there was very little for the Commander in Chief to command. In fact, the Framers were reluctant to agree to a standing federal militia or navy. That too they saw to be a threat to representative government. Again, looking toward Europe, it was the last thing they wanted.

It is only since the Second World War when, because of the advent of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and the speed with which they can be launched, that so much retaliatory power has accrued to the presidency. But, again with the necessary acquiescence of Congress. It is felt that the national security state that we have become requires such powers be granted to the president. But, if Congress disapproves of presidential military ventures it has the exclusive power of the purse--only Congress can authorize governmental spending.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court, it too is a bit less than supreme. True, for the most part, when they rule it becomes the so-called "law of the land." But they rule about very little and even if and when they do, if Congress does not like a ruling it can pass other similar laws designed to get around SCOTUS rulings and, if that fails, amend the Constitution. Admittedly this is a rare and arduous process, but still the power resides with the Congress (and the states) to change if they wish our most sacred document.

Again, this doesn't sound co-equal to me.

Like it or not, the structure of the government we have is not as viable as it was in the sleepier 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. But it is what we have. Governmental gridlock was not something to be avoided, but was a desired part of the process. A relatively weak and unintrusive federal government is what our Founders intentionally framed for us and though we now know how intrusive an unfettered government can be, because of checks and balances, an ineffective government with a dominant Congress is what we have. Just what was intended.

April 29, 2014--Career Politicians

Congressman Aaron Schook, Republican from Illinois, was a guest on Monday’s Morning Joe.

His current claims to fame? He just returned from a trip to six European countries accompanying Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. And, more interesting, he had recently posted an Instagram photo of himself surfing in what looked more like Waikiki than Kiev.

When pressed about the photo, the former Cosmo model said that since nothing is private any more, wanting to control how he is perceived by the public, he is now posting things about himself to get control of his own "narrative."

As if there is pent-up desire for anyone to want to know more about him, much less how he looks in a bathing suit. Actually, quite hot, which, I was imagining, was why he was booked for Joe in the first place since when asked about anything involving public policy or foreign affairs, he sputtered innocuously, with a vacant but handsome look from standard Republican talking points.

When asked about immigration reform he said, correctly, that nothing will happen this congressional session unless Republicans and Democrats work together.

“Why is that so difficult?” he was asked.

He shrugged his shoulders and with a sigh said that when you think about running for Congress and then during the early days if elected, your desire to do “the right thing” evaporates when you realize this is “a hard thing to do.”

To this glimpse of insight there was no follow up.

Neither Mika nor any of the others (Joe was not present) asked why it’s hard.

Perhaps because they already knew the answer—new congressmen quickly learn that in the House to get along you have to go along with your party’s leadership (Democrats as well GOPers). And, in order to give yourself the best chance to be reelected every two years you have to tow the party line and not alienate the money people who will provide the cash to fund your campaigns.

Debriefing with Rona over coffee we talked about why neither of us has ever heard a reporter or cable news host probe why seemingly every member of Congress sees getting reelected time after time as his or her highest priority.

Rather than seeing this form of public service to be just that—service—all seemingly are primarily interested in building congressional careers.

Our Founders envisioned participation in the government to be a responsibility, not résumé building. They didn’t call for members of Congress to be paid (for years they weren’t) much less have retirement and health insurance benefits. Or, congressional barbershops, restaurants, and gyms.

They would be horrified to see people lingering in Congress for decades.

Wouldn’t it have been interesting for someone on Morning Joe to have asked Congressman Schook, who is a conservative and reveres the Constitution, how he reconciles his own congressional careerist ambitions with the vision of those who fought our Revolution, wrote our Constitution, and called for citizens to play limited and temporary roles in our government.

I’m not sure there are talking points for that. Either for congressmen or, for that matter, talk show hosts.

January 9, 2014--The 2040 Diner

We had just placed our order at one of our favorite on-the-road places, the 2040 Diner in Fredericksburg, Virginia--eggs and grits for Rona, and the $7.95 county ham special for me--when the owner plopped an overflowing plate of eggs and sides on the counter and himself on a stool.

"That looks good," Rona said, sipping her tea.

He turned in our direction, not responding, looking annoyed by her interrupting what must be a daily ritual.

I thought, "Here we go. We're already in trouble."

"Is that lemon you're squeezing on your eggs?" Rona asked, ignoring his ignoring us.

Without turning he nodded and grunted something indecipherable.

"I've never seen that before."

I mouthed to Rona to "Cool it."

But she persisted, "I never tried that. I love lemon and maybe I'd also like it on eggs."

"Very Grek," he said with a thick accent, squeezing another half lemon all over everything on his plate.

"Grek?" Rona said.

"Grek," he turned fully in our direction, "Grek, Greek. Dot's me. Grek."

"The lemon is very Mediterranean," Rona smiled at him.

At that, with effort, he lifted himself off the stool and lumbered in our direction, hunched over with his arms dangling at his side.

"Lemon we have with everything in Grek." His accent thickened as he neared us.

I was beginning to feel nervous. We were the only customers. 8:30 is often a quiet time in diners that cater mainly to locals--late for those headed to work, too early for older folks, and too off the tourist route for travelers. Usually, exactly our favorite kind of place.

But at the 2040 I was beginning to feel threatened. The two waitresses, who looked as if they had worked there for decades, watched, smiling, which partially reassured me.

"You Brooklyn?" he asked.

"What?" I finally joined in, thinking that might ease the situation. He stood pressing his huge stomach against our table, still with his arms dangling and swinging simian-like.

"Brooklyn? From dare?"

"Yes," Rona chirped, the caffeine in her tea taking hold. "Both of us." She included me in her sweeping gesture.

He glared at me and pointed, laboriously hoisting one of his thick arms. "Him too?"

"Yes, he and me. We were both born there. Are you also from Brooklyn?"

"Grek," he said.

"So how did you know we--"

"Sound just like your mayor. Bloom. Both you and him." He dismissed me with a wave of his massive hand.

"Bloomberg," I said, taking a chance by correcting him.

"No gut."

"He's not our mayor anymore," Rona informed him. "As of January 1st we have a new one. De Blasio."

"De who?"

"Bill De Blasio."

"What kind of name dat?"

"I'm not sure," Rona said. "Maybe Italian?" I nodded.

"Where does he stand on guns?" His accent miraculously gone. "Not like Bloomberg I hope."

"I assume--" I cut myself off, stunned by the change in the way he spoke and not clear where this might be headed.

"He doesn't understand us." What happened to all the Grek business, I wondered. He sounded like someone more from Virginia than Athens.

"In what way?" Rona asked, eating away at her eggs and grits as if not noticing. I was feeling substantially relieved and took to enjoying the wonderful country ham.

"He should come here and talk to people. Real people. Then he would see."

"I think he's not--"

"He is," he corrected me before I could finish.

"Is what?" I was feeling bolder with him backed off from us. But I was still thinking about his disappearing accent.

"Take my son, for example," the taller of the two waitresses said.

"Your son?" Rona said.

"Yes. He has a gun. Most of his friends do."

"I assume," I stammered, "To me it depends on how old he is. I mean from my perspective. But what do I know about these things. I'm just like Bloomberg. From New York. The city. Brooklyn."

"Exactly," she said, having wandered over to us.

"I mean, if I may ask, how old is he? You don't have to tell me, of course."

"I know that." She smiled a bit condescendingly in my direction. I deserved that, I acknowledged. "If you must know, he's eight."

"Eight?" Rona could not hide her surprise. 

"I know what you're thinking but you don't know my boy. Or his grandfather."

"Who is?" Rona ventured.

"He works for Homeland Security."

"Really? What does he--"

"He teaches marksmanship. Trains their best people to become snipers."

"Really? That's amazing," I said.

"To tell you--"

She interrupted Rona. "I think I know what you're thinking. That this is a terrible thing to do and--"

"Not really. I mean I know--"

"That in the real world," she completed Rona's thought, "as awful as it is, it's necessary. Don't you think? I don't need to spell out all the situations where we need them. Snipers. There's no other way to describe them. That's what they do. So we should call them what they are. And are proud to be. To help keep us safe. You remember those Somali pirates?" We both nodded. "Well, my father teaches Navy Seals too."

There was no need to say more. "His grandfather taught him, my son, all about guns. Starting at six."

"Not to--"

"No not to become a sniper," she and Rona laughed together. "But how to handle and respect them. Guns."

"To tell you the truth," Rona said. "This is not something or a world that I know anything about. I guess I'm OK with people having guns. I mean--"

"Among other things, it's in the Constitution," the owner rejoined the discussion. "The Second Amendment says--"

"We coud debate that all day," I said, "The history and meaning of it."

"You mean about the 'well regulated militia' part?" He said, now directly to me.

"That and other things," I said. "But at the moment I'm just enjoying your eggs and wonderful ham. Every year when we're here I can't wait to have some."

"Let's just agree," he offered,  "that things are often more complicated than they seem."

I couldn't disagree about that.

"Like, for example," the waitress said, "how few people from where you're from could learn from my father how to defend us."

"Fair enough," Rona said, "But there are many ways to do that. Not everyone has to . . . . There are other things that need to be done. And people from Brooklyn and other places are helping as well. In their own ways. About things they know how to do."

"One thing, for sure we all agree about," he said, "is that there are some bad guys out there and we have to figure out ways to keep people safe. There are probably other things we could agree about. Like privacy, for example. On the other hand," he caught himself, "considering where you're from, maybe not."

"It might surprise you," I said, finishing my ham, "but for a New York liberal I'm no so liberal about privacy and some of the things the N.S.A. does."

"And it might surprise you that I voted for Obama. Twice. And she did to,"he pointed toward the waitress who was refilling the coffee pot.

"Just once," she winked. "The second time, I didn't vote at all. A plague on all their houses," she said.

"While I'm holding this can I heat up your cup?"

"I'd love some," I said.